Sessions v. Dimaya

Sessions v. Dimaya
Lynch v. Dimaya
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 17, 2017
Reargued October 2, 2017
Decided April 17, 2018
Full case name
  • Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General, Petitioner v. James Garcia Dimaya,
  • Loretta E. Lynch v. James Garcia Dimaya
Docket no.15-1498
Citations584 U.S. 148 (more)
138 S. Ct. 1204; 200 L. Ed. 2d 549; 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2497
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorBoard of Immigration Appeals reversed sub nom., Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015); cert. granted sub. nom., Lynch v. Dimaya, 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016).
Holding
18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies", is unconstitutionally vague. Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityKagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch (Parts I, III, IV–B, and V); Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (Parts II and IV–A)
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in part)
DissentRoberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
DissentThomas, joined by Kennedy, Alito (Parts I–C–2, II–A–1, and II–B)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V
18 U.S.C. § 16(b)

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b),[1] a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.[2][3][4][5]

  1. ^ 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).
  2. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph. "Why Neil Gorsuch Sided With the Liberal Justices to Protect Immigrants From Deportation". Slate Magazine. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
  3. ^ "Opinion analysis: Crime-based removal provision is unconstitutionally vague - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. April 17, 2018. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
  4. ^ Liptak, Adam (April 17, 2018). "Justice Gorsuch Joins Supreme Court's Liberals to Strike Down Deportation Law". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 17, 2018 – via NYTimes.com.
  5. ^ Rubin, Jennifer (April 17, 2018). "Opinion | The Trump administration loses an immigration case — with Gorsuch as the deciding vote". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 17, 2018.